About your Search

20121101
20121130
SHOW
Book TV 132
Today 81
Hannity 67
( more )
STATION
SFGTV 701
SFGTV2 593
FOXNEWSW 496
MSNBCW 486
CNNW 477
FBC 315
FOXNEWS 308
CNN 298
MSNBC 296
CSPAN2 294
CSPAN 242
KGO (ABC) 219
KPIX (CBS) 195
CNBC 183
KNTV (NBC) 163
KTVU (FOX) 154
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 7133
Spanish 48
Korean 3
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 7,233 (some duplicates have been removed)
ion of the states of... california florida, illinois... and new york. and by the united states department of education... and the united states immigration and naturalization service. so, how was your weekend ? what weekend ? bill spent the whole time working, and i did laundry. that sounds romantic. he
the memo we provided you, there is concern or interest in being more mares it about how units are located, on-site units are located within a principal project when they work with the planning department to pick the unit themselves, what those units need to look like, do they need to be just like the market rate units. we already know the answer is no. but to what extent do they need to or not need to. and then there's conversation going on about parking, the unbundled parking policy the planning department and commission implemented years ago and how it applies to the below market rate units. we have a policy in place. we haven't touched it for ownership unit. [speaker not understood]. i'd like to talk to you while i'm here as part of doing our informational hearing now because i've been the one primarily working on this over the last few years about the significant changes that you'll see in the procedures manual for owners -- for the ownership program, the rental program and the ones that affect developers most and i can answer question about the program in general as well. we have abo
commission implemented years ago and how it applies to the below market rate units. we have a policy in place. we haven't touched it for ownership unit. [speaker not understood]. i'd like to talk to you while i'm here as part of doing our informational hearing now because i've been the one primarily working on this over the last few years about the significant changes that you'll see in the procedures manual for owners -- for the ownership program, the rental program and the ones that affect developers most and i can answer question about the program in general as well. we have about 1200, to set some framework, we have about 1200 units that have been produced through the program. that's since '92, 1992 because it was actually a policy for 10 years. we didn't produce any units during those years. primarily from the time it became city-wide law in 2002. we have about 1200 ownership and rental units mostly ownership. we've had a very small rental program to this day. and that's why we've made a lot of changes to our rental program in the procedures manual. potentially we'll ha
the rental program is, like i said, it's growing. we have about 320 units now. so, we should have 300 more just in the last two years -- excuse me, in the next two years. because so many of the units are coming online now are rental. so, it's a really good time to set forth our rental program rules. almost every rule in here is coming directly from renters and building owners who are curious to know how the program works. so, we've structured a rental program. we're trying to strike a balance between becoming too involved in the rental units and setting out some parameters for the renters and the project owners. these are private buildings with restrictions on their units. we don't own the unit. and we make that clear, but at the same time we get asked lots of questions about how the program could and should run. so, here's what we've done. we've set out some allowable reasons for rejecting a renter in the first place. stating explicitly that you -- a project sponsor or project owner can reject a renter if they can't pay rent, they don't meet the rent income standards, that they h
recognize that we defer to the building inspection department for unit count. the building inspection department as of may this year says this is a three unit dwelling count. thank you. do you have any other questions? >> yes. historically this board in the older days heard a lot of cases where people wanted additional units. your brief talks about the 3r reports but has not demonstrated to us there are three unit there is and have been there. >> we have the city's letter of determination that says that the property was originally configured as a three unit building. that's where i got my information. after the farm house -- >> which letter? >> the letter of determination dated -- >> in other words how do we know there are three units there now? >> yes, sir. well, we have my client's testimony. they're here. we have the planning department letter of determination that says this was originally configured as three unit building after it was a farm house. >> and see the other issue is being able to demonstrate that it was consistently there. a variety of things have b
for a long time was you couldn't use any government subsidies to build your inclusionary unit. you can't use tax credits and you can't use, you know, hud loans or senior housing programs. but then we did allow explicitly in 2010 the projects could use cdlac which is the california debt allocation committee bond financing available with the state particularly coupled with 4% tax credit to build their inclusionary unit, as long as they built more units and at a deeper level of afford ability. the reason we allowed that funding is because it's less competitive than other funding. we felt there was plenty of it out there and also we're getting more units at deeper affordability. we went ahead in 2010 and exempted these projects from inclusionary housing program thinking that their monitoring procedures were too much in conflict and learned after that there is no reason to exempt them, we can handle it. and their procedures can be synchronized. but more importantly, we don't want to lose the long-term affordability of these units. this is 4% tax credit unit are not restricted for a longer period
you has three components and first amend and add a cap on the number of efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage and approved and adding a reporting requirement. second require the open space for the micro units be shared open space rather than private open space and third it would require common interior space provided for the units . the cap as well as the open space requirements is not applicable to student housing projects and this is before the commission so that you may recommend adoption, rejection or adoption with mod ifdz to the board of supervisors. the department is recommending disapproval of the proposed ordinance but have modifications for you and the board of supervisors to consider if it is adopted so i would first like to outline the proposed change and move on to the department's recommendation. the planning code doesn't define efficiency dwelling units. so-called efficiency dwelling units are defined only in the san francisco building code based on the set of criteria that include providing living area with minimum size of 220 square feet, indivi
are all supporting the proposed legislation brie supervisor wiener to have the cap of 375 units. there are a number of reasons why and they aren numerical rated in the letter and i want to start by explaining a bit why we came to this compromise so you understand where this came from and i'm sorry that supervisor winier and two are not here to tell you a little more but i also wanted to make it clear that they both have helped to bring to us this point where we have this compromise. so you have heard about a lot of the issues already mentioned today. and, basically, what this is about, is that we think, this is experimental type of housing which, is all fine and good but we should treat it as such as an experiment that we want to watch closely and not allow to just go unchecked without us first knowing about the potential impact and that is because browse we have all thought careful fully about what those impacts might be and we have come one a long array, including because these units are actually above market, now, we have heard all of the argument about why they are afforda
those impacts might be and we have come one a long array, including because these units are actually above market, now, we have heard all of the argument about why they are affordable and yes, cheaper impaired to larger studio apartments but by square footage, they are indeed higher rent and therefore, what would be the role in potentially escalating rents in the adjacent buildings and nabses that is one thing and the other thing that you have heard a lot about is the displacement of families because instead of building family housing, we are building housing for single and is whether we have such rare land available we have to think about what is what we want to prior tices and so it's a public policy decision in that way. and we are concerned that, rather than addressing the current needs of our communities, as they stand now, we may actually be building housing that is enticing out of towners to come whereas, they would have lived in silicon valley perhaps or they are just getting their foot in the door with the tech industry, they are renting space in the san francisco that other
applicants for 14 units, for instance, in the rental program. you can imagine with how high rents are now. the ownership is lower because we have loan pre-approval. people are having a hard time getting loan pre-approval to be the perfect person for the pricing. >> right. >> we'll have four units and maybe 12 people will make it all the way to the lottery. and then we'll go to first come first serve if they don't sell. often it is selling because of the loan buyer pre-approval process. [speaker not understood]. we'd rather have fewer that are ready than more that are not. but yeah, i think the preferences work. >> and i guess -- i mean, it would be -- obviously you don't have it with you today, but it would be interesting if we could see the data based upon the people who are habiting those units. >> i can tell you a little. the rental [speaker not understood] is much more reflective of san francisco. white, asian, latino and african-american. i would say not in exact equal proportions, but closer than the ownership program. which has about 320 units, is the rental programs. ownership pro
, the next category that sort off overlaps all of that is student housing which may be a dwelling unit or a group housing it also could be it could take the fortunately of an sr o what determines whether or not something student housing is who ownses it or who controls it that is using and so we thought rather than introducing yet another category that has different size definitionings we should you just refer to the existing or amended definition codes. >>> yeah, i agree and then you start getting into different categorize which specifically are there for a reason and often do not have kitchens included but these are -- these units would be housing as defined as a unit under our general housing requirement that is they do have a kitchen within each unit. >> the building code requires that efficiency dwelling units do have kitchens. >>> that makes sense. they are individualized unit. >> thank you very much and i will have other question and is comments at the end of this. >> commissioner warden. >> yeah, i have two questions about this in on the one hand i want to support
the data based upon the people who are habiting those units. >> i can tell you a little. the rental [speaker not understood] is much more reflective of san francisco. white, asian, latino and african-american. i would say not in exact equal proportions, but closer than the ownership program. which has about 320 units, is the rental programs. ownership program has more units tend to be mostly white and asian and we're concerned about that. and that's one of the reasons why we have tried to beef up our program in terms of requiring for some home buyer education, creating -- now we'd like to have the conditional use authorization and the pricing and we'd like to bring in down payment assistance. we have money from the state that will soon be gone. we always try to layer. we work closely with our lenders. we only work with approved lenders that come to our office for training. we give them a list of every single financial layering they should look into from their buyer, everything from the state, everything from the city, everything. if you're a teacher you should get this, if you're a
families i e five children in one hawthorne and that is a building with a lot of two-bedroom units. the academic approach that the planning department has, is build two bedroom units and you will serve families. what did he say? he said he was shocked that they only have five children in the entire building. one hawthorne you can look it up on your computer. how many one bedroom units -- and how many two-bedroom units? the planning department has been committed to the planning commission to two-bedroom units as a solution to families in the city. but the real world test is, who buys the two-bedroom units? people that have the income and they make it an office. they commute from their second bedroom. so the real-world test is, two bedroom units vs. the reality that you -- remember he talked about his own experience in his own project. you have to cap these number of units. the number of units that we need in the city is for people that can afford housing and everyone knows that what we are approving, week after week whether they are two bedrooms or one bedroom units,
to have retained that three unit building that was there, so as a condition of approval they sought a building permit to reduce the number of units from three to two but that got a final completion from the building of inspection. there are no subsequent units that add that back and doing so would be violation to the planning code and only allows two units on the property and the original lot was 11e so the title inspection -- i mean if they failed to go back any further than 20 years on the property -- or 30 years on the property that is more bit of issue for the title insurance company because it does have history before that. so they missed the other 85 years that the lot existed but it was clear it was roared on the mother lot. that lot was retired and new lot numbers were given to the property, so they had instead of one and three buildings and had two unit buildings and complied with the zoning and in 1997 when the current owners bought the property there is conflicted testimony from the appellant and they did the three hour report. it's clear. it's in the appellant report.
again, support the 375 unit cap. thank you so much. >>> hi there are my name is mart tie dell hall ass and i'm a stone at city college and i would like to say that there were -- there is suppose to more pierce from city college and other universities here but unfortunately they would to work today, because you know they are trying to also survive in the city a lot of them coming from out of san francisco and who have grown up in the south of market and around san francisco. so, most of my friends pay around like a thousand dollars for student housing but you know they are trying to look for a new place to live because they cannot afford that. that is why they work and try to pay off also their tuition and is so a lot of my friends are in death, death debt and so am i and when you look at this, it's -- they could achieve and if you look at it five years later and when it hits the buildings what will happen in five years how will it be you have to think in against, like five years later. ten years later you have to see you are creating a city for people you are not just create
and i would like to support the housing coalition to create .edu's efficient housing units with one exception we said that .edus are a badly new response a extremely expennive housing market and they have been in other countries and are now appearing in other cities and supervisor wiener's legislation recognizes this and should be aa plodded for affordable house for many restriction unfortunately of the proposal is seriously under mind by the market camp rate on .edu's its poor public policy for two reasons while the housing coalition could support a cap planning department review we don't what you understand could be learned from such a very small sample size which, is one% of the city's housing stock. what conclusions would planning staff be able to reach by studying 375 units in a sample this small would they be able to determine whether or not it's a successful housing project? how it compares to other housing types or what changes might be recommended it's we dispute it's a statistically valid sample size and do not believe that the conclusions based on a sample size this s
on number of efficiency dwelling units that can be constructed and two amending section and adding section to impose open space and common space requirements on efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage. commissioner wu. >> just wanted to let the public know for the sake of transparency that i do work for trances bay community staff development center and staff may have been involved and i haven't been involved in those conversations and i serve as a commissioner as a individual. >> good afternoon. i am from the planning staff. the proposed ordinance before you has three components and first amend and add a cap on the number of efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage and approved and adding a reporting requirement. second require the open space for the micro units be shared open space rather than private open space and third it would require common interior space provided for the units . the cap as well as the open space requirements is not applicable to student housing projects and this is before the commission so that you may recommend adoption, rejection or
, but then build deeply affordable housing. or if it qualifies for the options they can build their units on-site or off-site. most recently we have land dedication as an option in eastern neighborhoods. that's been really exciting in taking a lot of our attention. so, today as dan adams mentioned, we're here to talk about the update to the manual that implements the code. so, we have a manual that's grown over time and has become more refined and it's been really exciting to work on it in the last year or so, actually a couple of years. because as dan mentioned it is a culmination of the last five years of learning about the program. we've had really stable staff over the last five years. we've had really vocal renters and buyers. this is a response mostly to consumer input and consumer questions, the need foremore transparency, the need for more questions to be answered, the need for the process to be more explicit. so, we feel like we've created a manual that is now very, very user friendly. i think we'll get smarter as we implement it and take some feedback from the public. and then alon
planning code by: 1, adding section 318 to put a cap on the number of efficiency dwelling units, as defined in the building code, that can be constructed with reduced square footage unless the units are group housing, affordable housing, or student housing; 2, amending section 135 (d) and adding section 135.4 to impose open space and common space requirements on efficiency dwelling units with reduced square footage; and 3, making environmental findings, planning code section 302 findings, and findings of consistency with the general plan and the priority policies of planning code section 101.1 -- with reduced square footage. >> thank you. and the sponsor supervisor scott wiener. >> thank you, mr. chairman. today is planning code legislation to the efficiency unit legislation that has already been heard in this committee that other legislation which is at the board of supervisors on tomorrow's agenda is a building code amendment. the companion legislation before us today is a planning code amendment. this legislation is being considered as a committee report, that it can be heard tomorrow as
dwelling unit count for the subject matter. matters is on for hearing. you can begin with seven minutes. >> good evening madam president and members of the board. i am allen sowle and the attorney for james mcdermott and nicholas andrade who live at the property along with their tenants. following extensive water damage to the lower level of the property a request for a building permit was sought by my client's architect at which time they represented to the building inspection department that the building was a three unit building. the planning department objected saying that no, we have a document in our file that says this is a two unit. my clients bought this as a four unit building and and was originally -- and altered to a three family dwelling according to city records. the records handed to my client by the planning department indicate that the owner at that time applied to allow the property to be subdivided into three separate parcels. it was originally 85 meet wide. those parcels were allowed to be subdivided if an agreement reached if they're two here and i would like
up. we haveback. and we know in our hearts but for the united states of america erybody. i'm thomas topping our agendatoday, four more for 44. putting the wind at his back president obama now looks ahead to a second term. calling himself more determined and inspired to face the challenges ahead.vñ the presiden second:w t electorage overallenger 303 electoral vos. and a narrow da too close to acceptance speech inicago, he mentioned rifts and cracksline his road back to the white house. >> i believe we can seize this future together. because we aot oursuggest. we'r the pundits believe.ambitions. and we rema states and states. united states of america. >>+l in the end as wildly what put the that all important 2708" electoral vote threshold. the workers pulling obama in the state that was the lin ohiotes that together made up obama midwest firewall, the second bng ryan's home state of i recall forthen-senator obama four years ago. in north carolina and asked pundits to come together sake of the >> america's at al point. we can't risk political do theu
this will becialdition of "morning joe."way. >>> ey long have fought our way back.now in our hearts that united states of come. and welcome to a special edition of "morning wednesday, november 7the mornihe- new york city in front of a great, awake. what's wpeoplele? >> have y >> unbelievable. well there's just a little news to report this morning. president obama has won a second term in the white house. >> what? >> this is huge. go ahead.11:15 last night, the ne presid>
. >> [speaking foreign language] >> she says instead of you building this micro units we advise that if you can please focus more on affordable housing i.d>> i'm going to translate for her. >> [speaking foreign language] >> good afternoon. i am maria and in a family of low income. >> [speaking spanish] >> she says she understands you want to build these units but we need to focus on more family oriented housing. [speaking spanish] >> she said i think that it's really important to put urgency on the housing situation for affordable housing for all families so families can be together. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> i am e lisa and representing families collaborative. i come today to urge you to put a cap on the 375 units, but i would also like to talk about student perspective. most of the times these families especially the students who are struggling with tuition and have low income jobs are wanting to stay together to help their families, to have a better lifestyle. some of the families i am talking about are families and most wait until the kids get old enough to help them move so
. mercy's comment earlier about the two berms is that there is a problem people want units to themselves they don't want to live with other em and so they will take whatever they can get a two bedroom better than a studio apartment or efficiency unit but three berms is another category of housing that we have a hard time of creatings and what we aught to be focusing on is keeping our older housing stock and larger buildings and single family homes and flats for families there is not an easy way to do that with you my point is creating these units only new and not allowing them in existing units we i take them in a different direction and not separate them out. so my feeling on this is i'm willing to be supportive of the community's direction on this but only if we add what it means and the report and because it's not meaningful if we put a cap without collecting the information on whether or not this is good or bad piece of legislation so that is where i stand ton but i do genuinely have concern and i do like all the other requirement and is i do think that you need more open space and h
on the 375 units, but i would also like to talk about student perspective. most of the times these families especially the students who are struggling with tuition and have low income jobs are wanting to stay together to help their families, to have a better lifestyle. some of the families i am talking about are families and most wait until the kids get old enough to help them move so i don't see how making a smaller unit is fitting that student coming out of that situation where it's already over crowded so they have no room for themselves or their families. and also we have a lot of families that wanted to be here. i don't know if i would have time to maybe read one letter or two to you that they wrote. elizabeth, she's with family. "we ask that you listen to our voices, and the reasons that we're giving you for putting a cap on these housing units. we are all tired of living in these situations of over crowdedness for our own families and for our children. you shouldn't have anymore units built than 375 in san francisco. these living units don't sound like they will be affordable t
code allows the bmr units to be sold at 90% on average. so, in one building you could have 0, 0, and 110 units. >> that was what i was talking to you about. and the other question i have is ted you qualify for this, you have to qualify by income. and as you own the unit, your income increase, but doesn't mean you can't stay in the unit. >> that's correct. >> once it's bought. >> that's correct. we monitor for occupancy. [speaker not understood]. we don't monitor for income on an ownership unit, but we do for rental. >> it's good people do increase their incomes over time and someone we expertctiontion they would. -- expect they would. [speaker not understood]. it could increase quite a bit. but maybe they'd sell it and move into something that was a little more -- know, because they could afford a market rate unit then. >> that's interesting, i agree. a lot of those households are smaller households that buy one-bedroom units. they often find themselves being sized out because they get married and have kids. they tend to be moving on. >> that makes sense. and then i think you ta
is suppose to come one a study that informs the board as to whether or not this should be more units bill built and it doesn't seem that, that offers much direction and i think the information need to be collected on not only the production and the cost and everybody everything the physical units and building, but also on the people who are moving in there. and pardon me,? >>> i could speak to that if you would like. >> in a minute. >>> yeah --. >> okay and i think that the other possible shortcoming is if we only base it on the initial move-ins it doesn't speak to the long 87 fee of the process and if we cut it off, and the building continues to evolve in some fashion and whether it's apartment -- i don't know are these consider does are these going to be apartments? ms., hey ward? contemporary plate that they are going to be for sale? could be either i have another quick question, it has been mentioned the commissioner approval process aren't these going to be of right departing on the development and zone and all of those things. >> didn't depending on all of those
of units being approved in the city of these -- exceed a certain% like 10% of the units of the city being approved in the or five% i don't know the exact number that triggers an analysis because if it's some low%, five% of the unit being built or seven%, i don't think it's a big deal but if it gets above the total number of housing units building built, yeah, it's a problem if all developers are out there are building these fish convenient units rather than two bedroom units and but i think it's clungy and doesn't get at what we are trying to get at. >>> well i find myself in agreement with commissioner and clungy is probably the right word 350 is the right number and i completely agree with commissioner that a number is only as good as the study and i'm curious on who's going to fund the study and watch the study and one of the question that we are going to ask with that and this is also so much location based where the location of this unit is downtown you know square it has the possibility of becoming a hotel unit and if it's out in the sunset it's probably not going to happen and ha
per unit regardless of the -- the total number of efficiency dwelling units included in a proposed project and allows for maximum common space required and finally we recommend that the new requirement for common space be relocated to planning code section 140 and just for the sake of consistency and that concludes my presentation but of course i am available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. at this time we can open it up for public comment? do we have any speaker cards? >> i don't. >> okay. for those that would like to speak you can line up on the screen side of the room and approach the podium. >> would anyone like to speak to this item? please state your name for the record. >> good an of. i am angela and i am with tom cat and sorry we were rushing here and a lot of families had to pick up the children before coming here. as you know it's tile to pick up the kids. we are here today to encourage the commissioners to please support the 375 cap units. just a little brief background on that is for the past few months community groups and supervisor scott wiener along
asian history. >> guest: united states is still very much engaged in that corner of the worldment we have many alis and partners we're working with, and many students, midshipman, are going to be officers who are going to go to southeast asia and represent our interests there. so i think it's important for them to know southeast asian history to be comfortable with the culture and have some knowledge of their history. >> host: well, professor ruth. one of our long-time allies is thigh taken, and you have written a book called "in buddha's company: thai sole soldiers in the vietnam war." what role did they play? >> guest: thailand was a close ally of the united states during the vietnam war. many people who are official with the circumstance good-familiar with the circumstances of she vietnam, but not only thailand sent troops but also served as a base for many of the aircraft that were flying, bombing missions over laos and south vietnam. at the time we had built seven air bases and developed a port there as well to facilitate the u.s. effort in the vietnam war and also many america
and security of the >>guest: it is. the part of the world with united states has been involved in the iran-iraq war, desert shield, desert storm and operation in iraqi freedom. it is a big topic and it needs to be discussed and investigated. >>host: where do you begin talking about u.s. involvement? >>guest: the u.s. involvement in the valleys goes much further back. we specifically look at the persian and gulf even though they sent some ships it is really world for to the united states and military get involved in a big way. surprisingly it does not have to do with the oil. world war ii marked the entry of the united states and its military to provide a secure pathway for supplies to the beleaguered soviet russian allies in their quest to defeat the germans. the persian gulf was one pathway to bring e equipment through the back channel through persia through the mountains picked up by a the russians by tehran. and a much smaller percentage were involved with trading missions with there and and saudi arabia. but our 60,000 uniformed troops left the supply delivery business to rush up. thos
a lady who bought a couple of units and wanted my opinion years ago. she had an old victorian with an old brick foundation. she was absolutely convinced that the foundation had to be concrete and had to be concrete tomorrow. it was the first thing she did. she had different people, and look at the way she could do it. someone convinced her she should really be fit up and do it to the degree that she could add another unit or another living space down the line it see -- if she so chose. against my advice, she probably spent over $100,000 on pouring concrete down there. it sits there as an empty shell of a basement, which is sort of useless, really. i think you can get expert opinions from many different people, and the value question is a different question than an expert opinion on a particular subject. the value question is a question of the value of the property. is it over-improving? sometimes the contractor will tell you otherwise. the value is probably for a salesperson. >> that is something john wrote out. what value? value to you? value to the appraiser who comes in in one month? v
this efficiency dwelling units -- i mean i want to speak my mind and 1300 to 1600 a month is not affordable for students alone and they're dealing with this at the same time. as families we want to keep the students with us. i don't want to be separated from them so please focus on building more affordable housing here in san francisco and afford this cap on the legislation. thank you so much for your time. have a good one. >> good evening everyone. i am linda jimenez. i am with -- [inaudible] this is in regard to the 375 units that you guys are building and what i am requesting for some of the people -- not to add more units on this one. now i livehere and can't do this anymore. i have two grandkids in college soon >> [speaking foreign language] >> so i am here today to ask you guys for your support for the 375 cap on this legislation because as she said that as a low income family she says she don't want -- first of all she don't want this legislation. second if you are going to build this please put a cap on 375. >> [speaking foreign language] >> she says instead of you building th
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 7,233 (some duplicates have been removed)